Personal liability cannot be imposed on a public officer without notice; wrongful recovery must be refunded with interest.

A public officer cannot be saddled with personal monetary liability for interest from salary without being impleaded in an individual capacity and given notice and hearing. The Court found no separate adjudication supporting personal liability, so that direction was unsustainable and was set aside. A refund direction against the revenue authority remained binding on the State, and amounts recovered from the appellant on the basis of the invalid personal-liability order had to be returned with interest. The State's liberty to initiate separate proceedings for lawful recovery, if permitted, was preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revenue officer could be saddled with personal liability to pay interest from his salary without being impleaded and put on notice in his individual capacity; (ii) Whether the amount of interest recovered from the appellant was liable to be refunded by the State with interest, while preserving the State's right to take separate proceedings for recovery if permissible in law.

Issue (i): Whether a revenue officer could be saddled with personal liability to pay interest from his salary without being impleaded and put on notice in his individual capacity.

Analysis: The direction for payment of interest from the officer's salary was not supported by any specific adjudication on personal liability under the refund provisions. The impugned order proceeded on a concession of counsel for the Revenue, but no clear concession was recorded that the concerned officer personally owed the amount. Since the order imposed a personal monetary burden on an individual officer, he ought to have been impleaded in his personal capacity and given notice and an opportunity to contest the alleged liability. In the absence of such notice and independent reasoning, the direction imposing personal liability could not stand.

Conclusion: The direction fastening personal liability on the officer was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount of interest recovered from the appellant was liable to be refunded by the State with interest, while preserving the State's right to take separate proceedings for recovery if permissible in law.

Analysis: The direction requiring refund with interest was directed against the revenue authority and was binding on the State Government, not against any individual officer. The State had already implemented that direction as against the refund obligation. To the extent money had been recovered from the appellant towards the personally fastened interest liability, that recovery could not survive once the personal-liability direction was quashed. At the same time, the Court preserved the State's liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if personal recovery was otherwise legally permissible.

Conclusion: The State was required to refund the recovered amount to the appellant with interest, and its right to pursue lawful recovery proceedings separately was preserved.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent that the personal liability clause was struck down, the recovered amount was ordered to be returned with interest, and the State's obligation to implement the refund direction against the revenue authority remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A personal monetary liability cannot be imposed on a public officer without impleading him in his individual capacity and affording notice and hearing, and a refund direction against the revenue authority does not automatically justify personal recovery from an officer absent a distinct adjudication of liability.

---